Wood Science and Technology

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 653–675 | Cite as

The effect of chemical treatments of natural fibres on the properties of phosphate-bonded composite products

  • S. O. Amiandamhen
  • M. Meincken
  • L. Tyhoda


Phosphate-bonded composites are an emerging class of building materials produced from natural fibres and phosphate based cement pastes. They are durable and possess mechanical properties similar to those of Portland cement. However, the moisture absorption of natural fibre can lead to swelling which may result in the reduction in the mechanical strength properties and eventually negatively affect the long-term performance and dimensional stability of the products. This study was aimed at the modification of some properties of selected biomaterial residues in order to enhance the final properties of the phosphate-bonded composite product. Three different treatments were evaluated viz. 1% caustic alkali, 1% acetic anhydride and hot water on natural fibres derived from slash pine, black wattle and bagasse. The effect of the treatment on the fibres was evaluated via HPLC, SEM and FTIR. Further, the performance of the treated fibres was evaluated in composite panels bonded with magnesium phosphate (MgPO4) and calcium phosphate (CaPO4) cement pastes against the controls. The manufactured panels were tested for flexural properties and dimensional stability. In the MgPO4-bonded panels, the MOR increased from 0.55 MPa for untreated bagasse panels to 0.79 MPa for alkalised panels. Similarly, the MOE increased from 150.04 MPa for untreated bagasse panels to 175.65 MPa for alkalised panels. In untreated MgPO4-bonded panels, the mean density was 0.76, 078 and 0.75 g/cm3, while in alkalised panels, the mean density was 0.81, 0.81 and 0.81 g/cm3 for wattle, pine and bagasse panels, respectively. In the bagasse panels, the water absorption was 54.61% for untreated, 48.74% for hot water extracted, 42.21% for acetylated and 36.44% for alkalised MgPO4-bonded panels. This represents a percentage improvement of 11, 23 and 33%, respectively. Alkali-treated fibres had the best effect overall for all measured properties.



The authors thank the National Research Foundation, South Africa for financial support (Grant No. 88598). We also acknowledge Cape Pine, TSB Sugar Ltd., and EC Biomass for material supplies.


  1. Abdelmouleh M, Boufi S, Belgacem MN, Dufresne A (2007) Short natural-fibre reinforced polyethylene and natural rubber composites: effect of silane coupling agents and fibres loading. Compos Sci Technol 67(7–8):1627–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amiandamhen SO, Meincken M, Tyhoda L (2016) Magnesium based phosphate cement binder for composite panels: a response surface methodology for optimisation of processing variables in boards produced from agricultural and wood processing industrial residues. Ind Crops Prod 94:746–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amiandamhen SO, Meincken M, Tyhoda L (2017) Calcium phosphate bonded wood and fibre composite panels: production and optimization of panel properties. Holzforschung. Google Scholar
  4. ASTM (2013) ASTM D1037-13 Standard test methods for evaluating properties of wood-base fiber and particle. Annual book of ASTM Standards. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. Google Scholar
  5. Beckermann GW, Pickering KL (2008) Engineering and evaluation of hemp fibre reinforced polypropylene composites: fibre treatment and matrix modification. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 39(6):979–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bledzki AK, Mamun AA, Lucka-Gabor M, Gutowski VS (2008) The effects of acetylation on properties of flax fibre and its polypropylene composites. Express Polym Lett 2(6):413–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boonstra MJ, Pizzi A, Ohlmeyer M, Paul W (2006) The effects of a two stage heat treatment process on the properties of particleboard. Holz Roh Werkst 64(2):157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EN 634-2 (2007) Cement-bonded particleboards-specifications, part 2: requirements for OPC bonded particleboards for use in dry, humid and external conditions. European Standard, London, p 634Google Scholar
  9. Evans PD, Morrison O, Senden TJ, Vollmer S, Roberts RJ, Limaye A, Arns CH, Averdunk H, Lowe A, Knackstedt MA (2010) Visualization and numerical analysis of adhesive distribution in particleboard using X-ray micro-computed tomography. Int J Adhes Adhes 30(8):754–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferraz GP, Frear C, Pelaez-Samaniego MR, Englund K (2016) Hot water extraction of anaerobic digested dairy fiber for wood plastic composite manufacturing. BioResources 11(4):8139–8154Google Scholar
  11. Garrote G, Dominguez H, Parajo J (1999) Hydrothermal processing of lignocellulosic materials. Holz Roh Werkst 57(3):191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hajiha H, Sain M, Mei LH (2014) Modification and characterization of hemp and sisal fibers. J Nat Fibers 11(2):144–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Joffre T, Segerholm K, Persson C, Bardage SL, Luengo Hendriks CL, Isaksson P (2017) Characterization of interfacial stress transfer ability in acetylation-treated wood fibre composites using X-ray microtomography. Ind Crops Prod 95:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kabir MM, Wang H, Aravinthan T, Cardona F, Lau K-T (2011) Effects of natural fibre surface on composite properties: a review. In: 1st international postgraduate conference on engineering, designing and developing the built environment for sustainable wellbeing (eddBE2011), Brisbane, Australia, 27–29 April 2011, pp 94–99Google Scholar
  15. Kaczmar JW, Pach J, Burgstaller C (2011) The chemically treated hemp fibres to reinforce polymers. Polimery/Polymers 56(11–12):817–822Google Scholar
  16. Kamke FA, Nairn JA, Muszynski L, Paris JL, Schwarzkopf M, Xiao X (2014) Methodology for micromechanical analysis of wood adhesive bonds using X-ray computed tomography and numerical modeling. Wood Fiber Sci 46(1):15–28Google Scholar
  17. Kanungo D, Francis RC, Shin N-H (2009) Mechanistic differences between kraft and soda/AQ pulping. Part 2: Results from lignin model compounds. J Wood Chem Technol 29(3):227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karade SR, Irle M, Maher K (2003) Assessment of wood-cement compatibility: a new approach. Holzforschung 57:672–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kobayashi N, Okada N, Hirakawa A, Sato T, Kobayashi J, Hatano S, Itaya Y, Mori S (2009) Characteristics of solid residues obtained from hot-compressed-water treatment of woody biomass. Ind Eng Chem Res 48(1):373–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Le Troedec M, Sedan D, Peyratout C, Bonnet JP, Smith A, Guinebretiere R, Gloaguen V, Krausz P (2008) Influence of various chemical treatments on the composition and structure of hemp fibres. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 39(3):514–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li X, Tabil LG, Panigrahi S (2007) Chemical treatments of natural fiber for use in natural fiber-reinforced composites: a review. J Polym Environ 15:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu W, Mohanty AK, Askeland P, Drzal LT, Misra M (2004) Influence of fiber surface treatment on properties of Indian grass fiber reinforced soy protein based biocomposites. Polymer 45(22):7589–7596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loxton C, Thumm A, Grigsby WJ, Adams TA, Ede RM (2003) Resin distribution in medium density fiberboard. Quantification of UF resin distribution on blowline- and dry-blended MDF fiber and panels. Wood Fiber Sci 35(3):370–380Google Scholar
  24. Mohanty AK, Misra M, Drzal LT (2005) Natural fibers, biopolymers, and biocomposites, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 896. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oladele IO, Olajide JL, Ogunbadejo AS (2015) The influence of chemical treatment on the mechanical behaviour of animal fibre-reinforced high density polyethylene composites. Am J Eng Res 4(2):19–26Google Scholar
  26. Papadopoulou E, Bikiaris D, Chrysafis K, Wladyka-Przybylak M, Wesolek D, Mankowski J, Kolodziej J, Baraniecki P, Bujnowicz K, Gronberg V (2015) Value-added industrial products from bast fiber crops. Ind Crops Prod 68:116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pelaez-Samaniego MR, Yadama V, Lowell E, Espinoza-Herrera R (2013) A review of wood thermal pretreatments to improve wood composite properties. Wood Sci Technol 47(6):1285–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pelaez-Samaniego MR, Yadama V, Garcia-Perez T, Lowell E, Amidon T (2014) Effect of hot water extracted hardwood and softwood chips on particleboard properties. Holzforschung 68(7):807–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pickering KL, Beckermann GW, Alam SN, Foreman NJ (2007) Optimising industrial hemp fibre for composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 38(2):461–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sawpan MA, Pickering KL, Fernyhough A (2011) Effect of various chemical treatments on the fibre structure and tensile properties of industrial hemp fibres. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 42(8):888–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sgriccia N, Hawley MC, Misra M (2008) Characterization of natural fiber surfaces and natural fiber composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 39(10):1632–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sluiter A, Hames B, Ruiz R, Scarlata C, Sluiter J, Templeton D, Crocker D (2012) NREL/TP-510-42618 analytical procedure—determination of structural carbohydrates and lignin in biomass. Laboratory Analytical Procedure (LAP) (April 2008), p 17Google Scholar
  33. TAPPI T211 (2004) 211 om-02; Ash in wood, pulp, paper and paperboard: combustion at 525 C. TAPPI Test Methods 2005:3–6Google Scholar
  34. Thovert JF, Yousefian F, Spanne P, Jacquin CG, Adler PM (2001) Grain reconstruction of porous media: application to a low-porosity Fontainebleau sandstone. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys 63(6I):061307/1–061307/11. Google Scholar
  35. Tserki V, Zafeiropoulos NE, Simon F, Panayiotou C (2005) A study of the effect of acetylation and propionylation surface treatments on natural fibres. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 36(8):1110–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vena PF, Görgens JF, Rypstra T (2010) Hemicelluloses extraction from giant bamboo prior to kraft and soda aq pulping to produce paper pulps, value-added biopolymers and bioethanol. Cell Chem Technol 44(4–6):153–163Google Scholar
  37. Wagh AS (2004) Chemically bonded phosphate ceramics, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 304. ISBN 9780080455679Google Scholar
  38. Wang Y, Muszynski L, Simonsen J (2007) Gold as an X-ray CT scanning contrast agent: effect on the mechanical properties of wood plastic composites. Holzforschung 61(6):723–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest and Wood ScienceStellenbosch UniversityStellenboschSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations